In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
I side with the senate 100%. This is one case where I do see the messy side and I do see Obama's point, but no. Saudi Arabia is extremely awful and anything we can do to inch ourselves closer to it being accountable gets an A+ from me. That being said, I fully recognize a veto being the responsible thing for Obama to do. This is an instance where I feel the messiness is justified. But I am pretty ignorant. Maybe this could be worse than I am realizing. Happy to be shown to be wrong.
While I agree with this, the problem people are citing is that it could make it possible for people in other nations to sue the US.
Perhaps, as a planet, we should welcome it? Imagine a world where superpowers are accountable. What if Russia couldn't just give missiles to rebels, end up shooting down a plane, then wiping their hands of it? What if China was accountable? Realistically, this idea of the big 3 being immortal has to go away at some point. Sometimes the only thing to do is rip the bandage off. You're gonna do it eventually, so YOLO.
However, I will concede that a world where the US is the only one able to be sued is silly. I welcome a revamp where everyone is accountable, but if the US is the only one, it just tips powers towards the other 2 with no real worldly benefit.
You think China and Russia are super-powers that arn't accountable?
You think Russia is a superpower?
No I was asking Moo if he thought Russia was a superpower.
And did he?
I think it is a superpower with down syndrome. It does not have the capability to achieve any of the greatness of CN/US/EU, but it still has enough to really shitty on people's day. A shadow of its former self, for sure, but lets not pretend NATO has no purpose anymore. Russia is a major player in the Syrian conflict. They matter a lot. It is easy to shit on them, but they are still relevant.
Hah.
No.
Russia faces severe demographic crisis and an economy that...well. It's not a pretty long-term projection. It's going to be challenging to keep their current, relative status and influence abroad. Crimea was a response to the drift away of Ukraine proper from the Russian sphere (as was Georgia), meanwhile China continues to expand economic ties and investments in Central Asia, a region traditionally dominated by Russia. They will remain a strong regional actor/power, but to call them a "superpower" is a complete misuse of the term. They don't even fit the traditional definition of a "great power".
perhaps I am simply misusing the term then. I considered Russia a superpower because they are a nuclear power and a really large economy. Now that I have done more research, I am finding that Russia's military (nukes) are basically the only reason they are relevant nowadays. Weird. Thank you all for correcting my ignorance.
These days Russia is usually in the news in relation to its role and actions in Syria, in cyberattacks targeting the US, or in Ukraine, so it's easy to get an incomplete picture of its weight as an international actor.
On September 29 2016 05:51 Nevuk wrote: [quote] While I agree with this, the problem people are citing is that it could make it possible for people in other nations to sue the US.
Perhaps, as a planet, we should welcome it? Imagine a world where superpowers are accountable. What if Russia couldn't just give missiles to rebels, end up shooting down a plane, then wiping their hands of it? What if China was accountable? Realistically, this idea of the big 3 being immortal has to go away at some point. Sometimes the only thing to do is rip the bandage off. You're gonna do it eventually, so YOLO.
However, I will concede that a world where the US is the only one able to be sued is silly. I welcome a revamp where everyone is accountable, but if the US is the only one, it just tips powers towards the other 2 with no real worldly benefit.
You think China and Russia are super-powers that arn't accountable?
You think Russia is a superpower?
No I was asking Moo if he thought Russia was a superpower.
And did he?
I think it is a superpower with down syndrome. It does not have the capability to achieve any of the greatness of CN/US/EU, but it still has enough to really shitty on people's day. A shadow of its former self, for sure, but lets not pretend NATO has no purpose anymore. Russia is a major player in the Syrian conflict. They matter a lot. It is easy to shit on them, but they are still relevant.
Hah.
No.
Russia faces severe demographic crisis and an economy that...well. It's not a pretty long-term projection. It's going to be challenging to keep their current, relative status and influence abroad. Crimea was a response to the drift away of Ukraine proper from the Russian sphere (as was Georgia), meanwhile China continues to expand economic ties and investments in Central Asia, a region traditionally dominated by Russia. They will remain a strong regional actor/power, but to call them a "superpower" is a complete misuse of the term. They don't even fit the traditional definition of a "great power".
perhaps I am simply misusing the term then. I considered Russia a superpower because they are a nuclear power and a really large economy. Now that I have done more research, I am finding that Russia's military (nukes) are basically the only reason they are relevant nowadays. Weird. Thank you all for correcting my ignorance.
There's only one superpower in the world at the moment. That said, Tolkien and Kwark are really reaching with their conclusions about Russia, partially based off wishful thinking. The economic/military/political/technological power of Russia is quite significant even on a global scale. The concerns they bring up (demographics, cash shortages, etc) are real and valid, but their conclusions based on them are a reflection of their desires more so than the truth. It would be like saying the US is fucked because it has a dysfunctional Congress, a debt-to-GDP ratio of over 100%, ethnic strife between blacks and the police, and it can't even win a war in Iraq. All those concerns are important and real but the conclusion based on those concerns is a pile of horseshit.
Similarly, the issues of FP are far more complex than you make them out to be in your appraisal of US/Russian/Chinese policies. Every country in the world is a piece of shit from the proper perspective.
Lord Tolkien wasn't engaging in "wishful thinking" in the slightest, and his comment is accurate. While Russia continues to seek to be seen as a great power and has been working to bolster its status in recent years, the country suffers from structural (and short-/middle-term) obstacles to its ambitions, has a military that is going through impressive reforms but remains mainly focused on its periphery (with a couple of exceptions), and faces limits in its influence at the international level. Calling it a "great power" is a matter of definition, but LT's summary diagnostic and conclusions are well-informed, and your analogy misses the mark.
On the military front, it is undeniable that the reforms Russia launched a couple of months after its war with Georgia in 2008 have tremendously improved the material and human resources of the military (see here for a thorough, albeit slightly alarmist, analysis of those reforms). Its combat forces are better-trained and more efficient than they've been in a long time, its force structure is more flexible and suited for rapid intervention, its equipment has been modernized to a substantial extent -- although gaps and limitations remain and the process is ongoing --, and its experiments with hybrid warfare/non-conventional tactics have been met with success. Despite all of this, however, the Russian military's (conventional) capabilities and focus remain centered on its immediate or relatively near neighborhood, and not on power projection around the globe. While the country does have some expeditionary capabilities, they are absolutely dwarfed by those of the U.S. and they could hardly be used in long-term and heavy engagements far from Russia's borders. In addition, and as Lord Tolkien pointed out, economic obstacles make it difficult for Russia to go much beyond its current military development, and modernization efforts already have had to be slowed down as a consequence of the recent difficulties faced by the Russian economy.
As argued in this article, the obstacles faced by the Russian economy notably include 1) systemic issues, among which "endemic corruption, a weak rule of law, overregulation, and the dominance of state-owned and politically connected businesses and monopolies", 2) a reliance on oil (with currently declining oil prices), in particular for government revenue and 3) the impacts of the sanctions imposed by the West following the military intervention in Ukraine. Some of those issues can be remedied more easily than others (and the author argues that the country's demographic woes, with its aging population, can be offset by immigration), but it is clear that Russia suffers from significant weaknesses on the economic front that hamper its ambitions as a global player. Not only do they limit the scope (and current implementation in some areas) of its military reforms, but economic power now holds more weight in itself than it used to when it comes to international influence. And on the economic front, Russia's influence abroad faces difficulties, including tensions to various degrees with economic partners, mistrust with regards to its internal system/stability, and competition from other countries. Of course, the picture is certainly not all bleak -- Russia clearly remains an important economic actor, but its weaknesses should not be brushed aside when assessing its status on the international scene.
While Russia's actions in Syria have made it an important player in the diplomatic negotiations on the Syrian conflict, its soft power, in particular its diplomatic influence on countless other matters within international institutions, should not be overstated either/put on equal footing with that of the U.S. Again, this is certainly not to say that Russia has become irrelevant, because that is not the case at all, but Lord Tolkien's description of the country as a strong regional power (with influence not only on its Western and Southern borders, but also towards the North: it has clear ambitions in the Arctic region, and developments in the area in the upcoming years will be important to follow), which only somewhat fits the definition of "great power", is sound. Russia retains many strengths (one should also not forget about its Security Council veto, its nuclear arsenal, or the effectiveness of some of its propaganda efforts), and its influence on the international stage should not be underestimated, but it is still also characterized by limits and weaknesses that particularly impact the kind of role it can play away from its not-too-distant neighborhood. Your dismissal of Lord Tolkien's "conclusions" as "wishful thinking" is inaccurate.
On October 01 2016 06:16 Plansix wrote: [quote] The solution is they won’t be allied with the US and will ally with someone else. NATO is an amazing achievement and a wonder of modern diplomacy. It has allowed for decades upon decades of peace in Europe. We don’t throw it out because all the people alive today don’t remember what Vietnam, Korea and World War 2 were like.
Seriously, this is how shit like the War of 1812 started, when people didn’t go through the last war decided that it might be a good idea to shake shit up. And they burned Washington that time.
If NATO is used as a means to start wars and get people dragged into not-their-war as it sometimes does, the alliance will break apart. Not in a year, probably not in a decade, but well within our lifetimes. Instead, it should reconfigure itself to focus more on genuinely important matters like fighting terrorism (for real, not just to oust leaders they don't like under the guise of anti-terrorism) and non-proliferation.
Remind me, what was the one time NATO was used to drag people into war? And what was that war about?
Are you saying that it has fucked over the EU more time than it has fucked over the US?
Well, that and the only times any of the war articles were invoked were about terrorist groups and Middle Eastern wars.
Of course, that factoid is about as relevant as the fact that the US has not declared war since WWII. Technically true, but also fully missing the point that it really is just a technicality because official application of the legal statutes is much more significant than just their "informal" use.
Well, okay? But I don't see what that has to do with NATO now.
I mean, France said fuck off when you tried to drag them into Iraq. Sure, you gave them the stink-eye for it, but they're still in NATO.
Coercion comes in more forms than just legal mandate.
Right, so which wars were the US dragged into by coercion?
I'll give a better response in a few hours. On the road right now.
Guuuh. What a miserable day of travel.
Anyways, let's start with a very brief history of NATO. In the aftermath of WWII, most of Europe was pretty badly war-torn, but the US was quite well off - it managed to avoid battle in its own country by virtue of being two oceans away from the battlefield. Germany had fought its second gigantic war in a very short period of time and the country was split into four because people feared a third German war. The US also had the Marshall Plan and other initiatives meant to foster the reconstruction of Europe, but of course reconstructed in such a way that it benefited the US and its FP alignment. NATO also came out of this period.
After China became communist and the Korean War was fought, there was a genuine threat in the form of a Chinese-Soviet alliance, which could very well become a threat that could outdo the US. So NATO reunited West Germany into one country (because Germany is a strong ally, despite its danger) and became focused on deterrence of communism. Obviously it's a partisan geopolitical goal but that's fine; countries have those. A rather positive side effect of that alliance was that Europe started to come together into an economic community of its own, which took many forms but has since coalesced into the European Union.
The reasons for NATO's existence have mostly faded. The Warsaw Pact / USSR alliance collapsed, and while it is likely that Russia will eventually recover a lot of the strength that the alliance had, the bigger reason that Russia and China really aren't allies and never were. They will work together if it's a geopolitical necessity but they really aren't fundamentally compatible on an ideological level. USSR and China were enemies as much allies a lot of the time. They were both nominally communist but the reality was that they were far from the same kind of communism. The possibility of a Chinese invasion of Siberia was well-explored and considered to be a realistic threat that needed to be addressed in Russia.
Since the 1990s, NATO has been... different. I'm sure we're all at least somewhat familiar with the neoconservative movement, which basically takes the perspective that the US and the American view of democracy is the One True Path and that others should be coerced into joining that circle; basically the whole "spreading democracy" shtick is this. There's also a liberal equivalent, which is more or less the same but also has a cultural/economic hegemony element to it and has a cultural objectivist viewpoint (this group is somewhat poorly defined, but I personally refer to such people by the "neoliberal" label which is imperfect, but close to what it's meant to be). Both of these viewpoints became far more mainstream after the end of the USSR and they have a large influence on the modern policy of the US and its most loyal supporters.
An interesting document of neocon policy that has played a large role in modern FP was the Wolfowitz Doctrine. The long and short of it is, it's a doctrine that views the US as the one and only superpower in the world and that the US should keep it that way. To do so, the goal was simply to convince a lot of countries to abandon their ambitions of being world powers in their own right (Japan and Germany) and to prevent the rise of those who really can't be controlled (Russia and China; this made much more sense in the early 1990s). Basically it was a gigantic display of arrogance that overestimated the strength of the US in the world; there have been stronger empires in the past, they weren't ever able to do what the Wolfowitz Doctrine set out to do, and those didn't have to worry about their enemies having "nah fuck it all of you die" nukes if their existence was threatened. Nevertheless it's a very influential document that defines the US foreign policy to this day.
To a large extent NATO has always been an extension of the will of the US foreign policy ambitions, and was designed that way from the beginning. When you say "when has the US been forced into a war because of NATO?" you are missing the point. The US is the one that forces other countries into war. The 1990s saw some pretty imperialistic actions under NATO - most notably its involvement in Yugoslavia and somewhat in the Middle East, and a lot of these were simply blatant attempts to realign nations more closely with what the US would like. The years since then have been pretty similar, but Russia and China are a lot stronger than they were in that brief period of the 1990s and are much more capable of reacting and standing in the way of NATO than they were back then. The reaction of the US has been to meddle with the geopolitics of those countries by escalating conflicts that those nations have that existed, but have mostly been suppressed. Ukraine, Georgia, South China Sea, Chinese-Japanese land disputes, etc. Note that the military actions of NATO as an entity have been entirely in the post-Soviet era. However, the issue is that the US usually doesn't fight these wars itself - it uses Europe to fight those wars on its behalf. Note that Japan and the South China Sea countries in East Asia, and the EU in Europe, are the major parties that actually act to support US interests in the area - under military/economic coercion. Basically it's really hard to refuse the demands of a country that has a military force in yours and that you owe a lot of money to. Nevertheless, other countries get dragged into not-their-battle very easily and the NATO framework is to a large extent the means by which this occurs. The current refugee crisis is also a pretty significant not-their-battle that Europe has been dragged into, with rather substantial consequences.
Now, what about the incidental effect of the alliance, the newly found unification of Europe? Well to put it simply, it's already happened. The EU may or may not survive - the current structure involves more powerful EU nations exploiting weaker EU nations and very adamantly refusing to change - but the idea of a European economic union will almost certainly survive. The security alliance may not - frankly, most countries are not inherently aligned with US interests on international matters. Britain is (the "special relationship" is a strong cultural closeness that has been acknowledged for well over a century), but France, Germany, and most of the rest of Europe are not particularly so and often diverge from US interests. France, in fact, while being in NATO also sought to, in the event of war with the East, establish its own "separate peace" and as such developed a lot of its own military/nuclear capability. Germany is still fearful of appearing to be the Nazis again and has deliberately crippled a lot of its potential to be a powerful military nation. Turkey is... Turkey. Though they may have some willingness to comply with the FP ambitions of the US at present, a consistent divergence in FP ambitions is very apparent and if the US abuses its favorable political arrangement then it will slowly but surely degrade the viability of the alliance.
So in a sense, it is very true that NATO is obsolete. Its original goal - to contain the geopolitical threat of a unified communist opposition - is not the threat it was feared to be. At present, it is to a large extent a vehicle for the execution of neoconservative foreign policy. It's a very short-sighted approach that will undermine the existence of an alliance which, given valid cooperation with Russia, China, non-member allies, etc., can be very effective as a means to fight terrorism and enforce non-proliferation. Terrorism is an obvious threat, not just because people die in terrorist attacks but because the existence of terrorism strongly destabilizes the region where the terrorists operate, and nuclear proliferation just increases the danger that stupid countries without good nuclear policy start a nuclear war. Terrorism really does require international cooperation; if one side fights the terrorists but some other side supplies them, then the terrorists usually win one way or another. Non-proliferation also requires rather unified cooperation because the best way to convince a nation to abandon nuclear ambitions seems to be to show them that the rest of the world isn't really willing to offer them the means to do so.
So, after all that, let's get back to Trump. He did make the very valid observation that NATO in its current form is obsolete. It's a rare observation and not one made by many politicians, or any mainstream ones at all for that matter. It's so strongly against the current established system that it's generally political suicide to push for that position. To a large extent, having a strong military is a very good thing - the military is very good at pushing some genuinely valuable technological innovation, and also paves the way for a lot of very useful economic developments (e.g. Silicon Valley started from a very substantial military investment, the current Russian IT boom is very military-derivative). The problem, however, is that in the wrong hands, more military means more war. This is the entire idea of "beware of the military-industrial complex" which is just the observation that while the military is a good thing, it's often tied to more war.
Unfortunately, Trump went after a rather minor issue: other countries "taking advantage" of the US in their nations. Yes, it is true that the US does a lot of the military heavy lifting for many nations, but this is by design. Yes, there are some nations that get more than they put into NATO, not in security but simply in the form of monetary infusion from servicing American military personnel within their country. But a lot of the US "heavy lifting" is by design, and the US is wealthy enough that it's really not economically painful for it to keep up its military involvement as it is now. The arguments against this point are easy to make because he's wrong about how to go about reducing NATO. Still, he does deserve credit for being one of the only people to acknowledge that the current framework of NATO is wrong and it needs to reform.
Maybe Trump will pave the way for a more level-headed politician to address the proper issues, or maybe he will undermine the entire idea of reforming NATO based on more realistic goals. The risk of not doing so is to lead countries away from the current security structure into one that is more dangerous for the world - while there is absolutely a lot of benefit to a multipolar world (a unipolar power is a dangerous exercise in arrogance), there really is a lot of benefit in preventing every strong nation from clashing over political interests and for that there needs to be a framework for encouraging cooperation, and Trump's plan would undermine that. The risk is that Trump might undermine the entire idea of reforming NATO by association with stupidity. It's always hard to know how things like this will play out - historically, both have happened. Personally I think that Trump's position really lets people know that there is a strong underlying sentiment that NATO needs reforming, and that some politicians will be able to push for that in a more realistic manner, so I do give credit to Trump for acknowledging issues of importance.
On October 02 2016 01:54 kwizach wrote: Your dismissal of Lord Tolkien's "conclusions" as "wishful thinking" is inaccurate.
"Conclusions" being the assertion of certainly in his interpretation of long-term projections in a manner that can very well be described as "wishful thinking." The analogy of the US issues is apt - they could theoretically end very, very badly but to think that they will is very much just a willfully biased interpretation of likelihoods.
On October 01 2016 06:29 Broetchenholer wrote: I find it fascinating that the defense Trump-supporters in this thread go to when he insults women is that he insults everyone else as well. It was argued to death that this does not make it less mysogenist, but that they would rather vote for someone that is an asshole to everyone speaks volumes. Don't worry guys, he won't just insult Mexicans, he will also insult Europeans and Muslims and especially China! That is a good thing! The man has no policies apart from vague promises of greatness, so you don't want him for those in the white house. You are also not voting for him because of his political experience, even though he claims he is the only one that can fix it. But not because he is corrupt. So that only leaves character, right? But you just claimed he is an asshole. So do you just want to see the world burn? He is not Hillary Clinton, i give you that, but then again a baby is not Hillary Clinton and you wouldn't vote for the baby.
Just own that he is the worst candidate ever, do not defend his stupidity and say you are still voting for him because you want the world to burn.
I would without a doubt vote for the baby. The only way I would change my vote from the republican ticket is if someone more sociopathic than Clinton emerged, at which point I would just not vote. Trump represents my values, he has a reckless and asshole tone but that doesn't bother me.
you are saying Clinton is sociopathic, correct? and if so, what do you mean by that? are you using the clinical definition of sociopathy, or some other?
It is pretty apparent to me the way she speaks. No emotion, everything is forced or faked. She isn't actually a person, just pretending to be one all the time. The reason bernie or trump energize their base to a large extent is because they actually believe in something. That is my overall impression of her. Then you add in the email scandal, benghazi, making 150 million from producing absolutely nothing. Her responses are well calculated, and she is able to lie without flinching. My assessment of her is that she doesn't give a shit about other people, but is extremely power hungry to go down in history as the first woman president. That is her primary objective, everything else is secondary.
If I had to guess her meyer's briggs it would probably be an INTJ/INTP. She is a robot pretending to be a person.
aren't a lot of politicians intj/intp? There's a difference between low emotion and sociopathy. and the other things you cite don't really add up to a claim of sociopathy. of course a lot of leaders tend to score high on sociopathy tests anyways. and why isn't Trump a sociopath? and again, what definition of sociopath are you using?
and why would sociopathy be more disqualifying than other disorders, given its prevalence, and evident usefulness in high level positions?
whoa dude are you defending sociopathy tout court as societally useful especially among our leaders?
how come everyone in this thread cares more about biologymajor's deficient understanding of human beings than this radical suggestion?
On October 01 2016 15:30 Grumbels wrote: This armchair diagnosing is really stupid, I have read theories that Bush, Obama, Trump, Cheny, Clinton etc. are all sociopaths or narcissists with a variety of evidence. I get that they are public figures and it is important to get a feel for their characters, but all these arguments tend to come down to them being ambitious and calculated. Duh, they are politicians, but it is not sufficient to diagnose them from afar, and often these theories don't have any value in explaining their behavior.
Clinton actually has a very good excuse, which is that she is an older woman in the public eye who would be ruthlessly attacked if she displayed any sort of real emotion and who is constantly harassed and accused of nefarious motives. See how the GOP blows up tiny health problems into a sexist attack on Clinton's mental and physical fitness for office.
And Clinton's policies are occasionally expedient, and clearly she is a consumate politician, but she has a long history of pet topics she advocates for and she has always been centerleft. If pressure from Sanders voters can edge her to more progressive economic policies then that is just politics as usual. As a politician you are beholden to the public, so she should actually adopt these policies as long as they are roughly compatible with her inclinations and principles.
just because most armchair diagnosing is stupid doesn't mean all of it is. A few of us do know a fair bit about psychology, and enough to identify tentatively plausible diagnoses. admittedly most of the people who do it don't know what they're doing.
Everyone who has has formal training in diagnostics knows that one should refrain from armchair diagnosing. It's downright stupid.
hence why i'm noting tentative possibilities and including the necessary cautions. and it's all we got to work with at times.
tentative possibilities are kinda meaningless though?
At the same time sure, most high level politicians are likely to have some degree of narcissistic traits (I think we can extend this to 'most people who seek the public spotlight', not just politicians tbh) as well as some degree of calculating nature which shares some traits with the layman's understanding of what sociopathy entails. I'd argue that unlike the narcissism, a calculating nature (not to be confused with lack of empathy) is a highly positive trait for any statesman, whereas the combination of highly narcissistic and lacking of empathy constitute exactly the personality traits you want to keep away from positions of power. I make this statement without commenting on what politicians I personally think fit into each mold because for that I have no qualifications.
I was arguing the usefulness of partial sociopathic traits just yesterday and tentative possibilities do have some value; since it's indicative of a real possibility, but diagnosis is unreliable from a distance. not sure if biology is gonna continue on our yesterday discussion leading into it.
This tentative discussion of possibilities actually normalizes ideas like ambition = sociopathic, calculated = sociopathic, undesriable behavior = mental illness and therefore does more harm than good, given that tentative possibilities of pathologies have no predictive value in evaluating someone's fitness for office.
it sounds like you're not following the actual claims I made, and have confused them with what claims others were making somewhere else. and they do have predictive value for evaluating fitness, they're just far less predictive than if they were definitive diagnoses. So I assert your statement is without foundation, or at least strong relevance to the topic at hand.
They would have predictive value if they were real diagnoses, but your "oh I know enough about psychology to tentatively armchair diagnose from afar" scheme doesn't convince.
Given how often it's misused for "you have this disease" armchair diagnostics, I can't help but wonder if part of the development of modern psychology was as an agent for medical trolling.
On October 01 2016 06:29 Broetchenholer wrote: I find it fascinating that the defense Trump-supporters in this thread go to when he insults women is that he insults everyone else as well. It was argued to death that this does not make it less mysogenist, but that they would rather vote for someone that is an asshole to everyone speaks volumes. Don't worry guys, he won't just insult Mexicans, he will also insult Europeans and Muslims and especially China! That is a good thing! The man has no policies apart from vague promises of greatness, so you don't want him for those in the white house. You are also not voting for him because of his political experience, even though he claims he is the only one that can fix it. But not because he is corrupt. So that only leaves character, right? But you just claimed he is an asshole. So do you just want to see the world burn? He is not Hillary Clinton, i give you that, but then again a baby is not Hillary Clinton and you wouldn't vote for the baby.
Just own that he is the worst candidate ever, do not defend his stupidity and say you are still voting for him because you want the world to burn.
I would without a doubt vote for the baby. The only way I would change my vote from the republican ticket is if someone more sociopathic than Clinton emerged, at which point I would just not vote. Trump represents my values, he has a reckless and asshole tone but that doesn't bother me.
you are saying Clinton is sociopathic, correct? and if so, what do you mean by that? are you using the clinical definition of sociopathy, or some other?
It is pretty apparent to me the way she speaks. No emotion, everything is forced or faked. She isn't actually a person, just pretending to be one all the time. The reason bernie or trump energize their base to a large extent is because they actually believe in something. That is my overall impression of her. Then you add in the email scandal, benghazi, making 150 million from producing absolutely nothing. Her responses are well calculated, and she is able to lie without flinching. My assessment of her is that she doesn't give a shit about other people, but is extremely power hungry to go down in history as the first woman president. That is her primary objective, everything else is secondary.
If I had to guess her meyer's briggs it would probably be an INTJ/INTP. She is a robot pretending to be a person.
aren't a lot of politicians intj/intp? There's a difference between low emotion and sociopathy. and the other things you cite don't really add up to a claim of sociopathy. of course a lot of leaders tend to score high on sociopathy tests anyways. and why isn't Trump a sociopath? and again, what definition of sociopath are you using?
and why would sociopathy be more disqualifying than other disorders, given its prevalence, and evident usefulness in high level positions?
whoa dude are you defending sociopathy tout court as societally useful especially among our leaders?
how come everyone in this thread cares more about biologymajor's deficient understanding of human beings than this radical suggestion?
I think you have a typo in your first paragraph, or something which autocorrected wrong, which makes me unable to tell what your statement is so I can respond to it. the part where you say "tout court"
Armchair diagnosis is stupid, regardless of your level of expertise.
On October 02 2016 02:58 LegalLord wrote: Given how often it's misused for "you have this disease" armchair diagnostics, I can't help but wonder if part of the development of modern psychology was as an agent for medical trolling.
Technically, it's psychiatry that's the medical diagnostic field. Psychology is the science of behavior/brain functioning, without necessarily being interested in clinical application.
And there's a not-insignificant number of medical practitioners who find both to be bullshit.
On October 02 2016 02:58 LegalLord wrote: Given how often it's misused for "you have this disease" armchair diagnostics, I can't help but wonder if part of the development of modern psychology was as an agent for medical trolling.
Technically, it's psychiatry that's the medical diagnostic field. Psychology is the science of behavior/brain functioning, without necessarily being interested in clinical application.
And there's a not-insignificant number of medical practitioners who find both to be bullshit.
Usually it's the people with a slight bit of knowledge in psychology (e.g. one class at the college level) who involve themselves most with armchair diagnostics. It's a rather shitty breach of professional ethics for a real medical practitioner to do this, which has been discussed quite in depth upthread.
Still, despite its general usefulness, the applicability of psychology/psychiatry to medical trolling is not insignificant.
On October 01 2016 06:29 Broetchenholer wrote: I find it fascinating that the defense Trump-supporters in this thread go to when he insults women is that he insults everyone else as well. It was argued to death that this does not make it less mysogenist, but that they would rather vote for someone that is an asshole to everyone speaks volumes. Don't worry guys, he won't just insult Mexicans, he will also insult Europeans and Muslims and especially China! That is a good thing! The man has no policies apart from vague promises of greatness, so you don't want him for those in the white house. You are also not voting for him because of his political experience, even though he claims he is the only one that can fix it. But not because he is corrupt. So that only leaves character, right? But you just claimed he is an asshole. So do you just want to see the world burn? He is not Hillary Clinton, i give you that, but then again a baby is not Hillary Clinton and you wouldn't vote for the baby.
Just own that he is the worst candidate ever, do not defend his stupidity and say you are still voting for him because you want the world to burn.
I would without a doubt vote for the baby. The only way I would change my vote from the republican ticket is if someone more sociopathic than Clinton emerged, at which point I would just not vote. Trump represents my values, he has a reckless and asshole tone but that doesn't bother me.
you are saying Clinton is sociopathic, correct? and if so, what do you mean by that? are you using the clinical definition of sociopathy, or some other?
It is pretty apparent to me the way she speaks. No emotion, everything is forced or faked. She isn't actually a person, just pretending to be one all the time. The reason bernie or trump energize their base to a large extent is because they actually believe in something. That is my overall impression of her. Then you add in the email scandal, benghazi, making 150 million from producing absolutely nothing. Her responses are well calculated, and she is able to lie without flinching. My assessment of her is that she doesn't give a shit about other people, but is extremely power hungry to go down in history as the first woman president. That is her primary objective, everything else is secondary.
If I had to guess her meyer's briggs it would probably be an INTJ/INTP. She is a robot pretending to be a person.
aren't a lot of politicians intj/intp? There's a difference between low emotion and sociopathy. and the other things you cite don't really add up to a claim of sociopathy. of course a lot of leaders tend to score high on sociopathy tests anyways. and why isn't Trump a sociopath? and again, what definition of sociopath are you using?
and why would sociopathy be more disqualifying than other disorders, given its prevalence, and evident usefulness in high level positions?
whoa dude are you defending sociopathy tout court as societally useful especially among our leaders?
how come everyone in this thread cares more about biologymajor's deficient understanding of human beings than this radical suggestion?
I think you have a typo in your first paragraph, or something which autocorrected wrong, which makes me unable to tell what your statement is so I can respond to it. the part where you say "tout court"
nah its not a typo, maybe i should have italicized it.
b. tout court /tu kur/ , in short, in little, simply, without qualification or addition.
1747 H. Walpole Let. 26 June in Corr. (1955) XIX. 420 My eagle is arrived—my eagle tout court, for I hear nothing of the pedestal. 1888 R. Kipling Wee Willie Winkie 38 Judy was officially ‘Miss Judy’; but Black Sheep was never anything but Black Sheep tout court. 1928 C. Dawson Age of Gods xii. 262 There are grave objections to the identification tout court of the Nordic race with the Indo-European stock. 1958 Oxf. Mag. 15 May 435/1 Hove, instead of asking for Psychology tout court, has a course by a Harley Street psychiatrist. 1981 J. Sutherland Bestsellers xxiv. 240 Len Deighton's..history tout court of the Second World War (Bomber and Fighter).
Calling the prevention of a large scale genocide in yugoslavia as an imperialist action is pretty stupid. Europe didn't want to get their hands dirty in the most obvious post cold war problem they could solve so America had to stop the war before it really kicked off.
The rest of that I pretty much agree with, nato has become a way for the us to cover for europes lack of military in exchange for increased Us influence on the world. As much as euroes like to parrot around about being free from US influence they only have a choice between the US and Russia. One will cut off their natural gas in the middle of winter and watch your people freeze to death while blaming you for it.
On October 02 2016 03:06 TheYango wrote: Armchair diagnosis is stupid, regardless of your level of expertise.
On October 02 2016 02:58 LegalLord wrote: Given how often it's misused for "you have this disease" armchair diagnostics, I can't help but wonder if part of the development of modern psychology was as an agent for medical trolling.
Technically, it's psychiatry that's the medical diagnostic field. Psychology is the science of behavior/brain functioning, without necessarily being interested in clinical application.
And there's a not-insignificant number of medical practitioners who find both to be bullshit.
Usually it's the people with a slight bit of knowledge in psychology (e.g. one class at the college level) who involve themselves most with armchair diagnostics. It's a rather shitty breach of professional ethics for a real medical practitioner to do this, which has been discussed quite in depth upthread.
Still, despite its general usefulness, the applicability of psychology/psychiatry to medical trolling is not insignificant.
There is a joke I saw on television along these lines: a person discusses how he suffers from up to a dozen syndromes and disorders and relates this to an experienced psychiatrist, who then says "either you are seriously mentally ill and should be hospitalized immediately, or you are a first year medical student".
On October 01 2016 06:29 Broetchenholer wrote: I find it fascinating that the defense Trump-supporters in this thread go to when he insults women is that he insults everyone else as well. It was argued to death that this does not make it less mysogenist, but that they would rather vote for someone that is an asshole to everyone speaks volumes. Don't worry guys, he won't just insult Mexicans, he will also insult Europeans and Muslims and especially China! That is a good thing! The man has no policies apart from vague promises of greatness, so you don't want him for those in the white house. You are also not voting for him because of his political experience, even though he claims he is the only one that can fix it. But not because he is corrupt. So that only leaves character, right? But you just claimed he is an asshole. So do you just want to see the world burn? He is not Hillary Clinton, i give you that, but then again a baby is not Hillary Clinton and you wouldn't vote for the baby.
Just own that he is the worst candidate ever, do not defend his stupidity and say you are still voting for him because you want the world to burn.
I would without a doubt vote for the baby. The only way I would change my vote from the republican ticket is if someone more sociopathic than Clinton emerged, at which point I would just not vote. Trump represents my values, he has a reckless and asshole tone but that doesn't bother me.
you are saying Clinton is sociopathic, correct? and if so, what do you mean by that? are you using the clinical definition of sociopathy, or some other?
It is pretty apparent to me the way she speaks. No emotion, everything is forced or faked. She isn't actually a person, just pretending to be one all the time. The reason bernie or trump energize their base to a large extent is because they actually believe in something. That is my overall impression of her. Then you add in the email scandal, benghazi, making 150 million from producing absolutely nothing. Her responses are well calculated, and she is able to lie without flinching. My assessment of her is that she doesn't give a shit about other people, but is extremely power hungry to go down in history as the first woman president. That is her primary objective, everything else is secondary.
If I had to guess her meyer's briggs it would probably be an INTJ/INTP. She is a robot pretending to be a person.
aren't a lot of politicians intj/intp? There's a difference between low emotion and sociopathy. and the other things you cite don't really add up to a claim of sociopathy. of course a lot of leaders tend to score high on sociopathy tests anyways. and why isn't Trump a sociopath? and again, what definition of sociopath are you using?
and why would sociopathy be more disqualifying than other disorders, given its prevalence, and evident usefulness in high level positions?
whoa dude are you defending sociopathy tout court as societally useful especially among our leaders?
how come everyone in this thread cares more about biologymajor's deficient understanding of human beings than this radical suggestion?
I think you have a typo in your first paragraph, or something which autocorrected wrong, which makes me unable to tell what your statement is so I can respond to it. the part where you say "tout court"
On October 02 2016 01:54 kwizach wrote: Your dismissal of Lord Tolkien's "conclusions" as "wishful thinking" is inaccurate.
"Conclusions" being the assertion of certainly in his interpretation of long-term projections in a manner that can very well be described as "wishful thinking." The analogy of the US issues is apt - they could theoretically end very, very badly but to think that they will is very much just a willfully biased interpretation of likelihoods.
This is not at all an accurate description of the contents of Lord Tolkien's two posts on the issue. Your analogy with the US missed the mark because it failed to properly take into account and parallel the types of links that exist between the factors LT mentioned and Russia's status as an international actor, because it's not a matter of things "theoretically end[ing] very, very badly" but of already observable and ongoing dynamics that are already studied, and because the analogy was simplistic, hyperbolic, and analytically unhelpful. I develop in my full post why Lord Tolkien's assessment of Russia is sound.
Saying that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore violated judicial ethics when he ordered judges not to respect the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling on same-sex marriage, Alabama's Court of the Judiciary suspended Moore for the rest of his term in office.
The order also requires the head of Alabama's highest court to pay the costs of the proceedings against him and stipulates that he will not be paid for the remainder of his six-year term.
Alabama's next election for the chief justice post is scheduled for 2018.
"After his term though, Moore's age will disqualify him from running for judge," notes Alabama Public Radio, which adds that Moore could file an appeal to send his case to the state's supreme court.
The judgment against Moore was unanimous. But the nine-member court also noted that the decision is based on a review of Moore's behavior and decisions, not on the justices' views of the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling that same-sex couples have the right to marry — contrary to Alabama's law, adopted in 2016, that had reserved marriage for heterosexual couples only.
Saying that "some members of this court did not personally agree with" the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling, the judges wrote, "This court simply does not have the authority to reexamine those issues."
On October 01 2016 06:29 Broetchenholer wrote: I find it fascinating that the defense Trump-supporters in this thread go to when he insults women is that he insults everyone else as well. It was argued to death that this does not make it less mysogenist, but that they would rather vote for someone that is an asshole to everyone speaks volumes. Don't worry guys, he won't just insult Mexicans, he will also insult Europeans and Muslims and especially China! That is a good thing! The man has no policies apart from vague promises of greatness, so you don't want him for those in the white house. You are also not voting for him because of his political experience, even though he claims he is the only one that can fix it. But not because he is corrupt. So that only leaves character, right? But you just claimed he is an asshole. So do you just want to see the world burn? He is not Hillary Clinton, i give you that, but then again a baby is not Hillary Clinton and you wouldn't vote for the baby.
Just own that he is the worst candidate ever, do not defend his stupidity and say you are still voting for him because you want the world to burn.
I would without a doubt vote for the baby. The only way I would change my vote from the republican ticket is if someone more sociopathic than Clinton emerged, at which point I would just not vote. Trump represents my values, he has a reckless and asshole tone but that doesn't bother me.
you are saying Clinton is sociopathic, correct? and if so, what do you mean by that? are you using the clinical definition of sociopathy, or some other?
It is pretty apparent to me the way she speaks. No emotion, everything is forced or faked. She isn't actually a person, just pretending to be one all the time. The reason bernie or trump energize their base to a large extent is because they actually believe in something. That is my overall impression of her. Then you add in the email scandal, benghazi, making 150 million from producing absolutely nothing. Her responses are well calculated, and she is able to lie without flinching. My assessment of her is that she doesn't give a shit about other people, but is extremely power hungry to go down in history as the first woman president. That is her primary objective, everything else is secondary.
If I had to guess her meyer's briggs it would probably be an INTJ/INTP. She is a robot pretending to be a person.
aren't a lot of politicians intj/intp? There's a difference between low emotion and sociopathy. and the other things you cite don't really add up to a claim of sociopathy. of course a lot of leaders tend to score high on sociopathy tests anyways. and why isn't Trump a sociopath? and again, what definition of sociopath are you using?
and why would sociopathy be more disqualifying than other disorders, given its prevalence, and evident usefulness in high level positions?
whoa dude are you defending sociopathy tout court as societally useful especially among our leaders?
how come everyone in this thread cares more about biologymajor's deficient understanding of human beings than this radical suggestion?
I think you have a typo in your first paragraph, or something which autocorrected wrong, which makes me unable to tell what your statement is so I can respond to it. the part where you say "tout court"
nah its not a typo, maybe i should have italicized it.
b. tout court /tu kur/ , in short, in little, simply, without qualification or addition.
1747 H. Walpole Let. 26 June in Corr. (1955) XIX. 420 My eagle is arrived—my eagle tout court, for I hear nothing of the pedestal. 1888 R. Kipling Wee Willie Winkie 38 Judy was officially ‘Miss Judy’; but Black Sheep was never anything but Black Sheep tout court. 1928 C. Dawson Age of Gods xii. 262 There are grave objections to the identification tout court of the Nordic race with the Indo-European stock. 1958 Oxf. Mag. 15 May 435/1 Hove, instead of asking for Psychology tout court, has a course by a Harley Street psychiatrist. 1981 J. Sutherland Bestsellers xxiv. 240 Len Deighton's..history tout court of the Second World War (Bomber and Fighter).
hmm, never seen that one before. In that case, the short answer is yes. a longer answer would get into things like "to an extent", elaborations and limitations and uncertainties.
Everyone sees a small and aging population as a weakness at all times. That's not necessarily true anymore. I honestly think that many western countries with large, young, migrant populations will consider them as a significant problem in the near future (if we are not there already). Because with automation the lowest skilled workers are cut first which leads to significant unemployment which can lead to social unrest. And cultural differences and racism make it harder to make large sweeping changes to social security that is required to deal with this.
Most countries would probably rather have 1 guy overseeing 9 robots than 1 guy overseeing 9 robots and 9 unemployed people to support and keep from rioting.
Not saying population doesn't matter at all but it matters much less. Even military population size is much less relevant than economic strength since just fielding large amounts of men is not relevant anymore.
California’s department of motor vehicles said late on Friday the most advanced self-driving cars will no longer be required to have a licensed driver, if federal officials deem them safe enough.
The regulator released a revision of draft regulations that opened a pathway for the public to access self-driving cars, prototypes of which automakers and tech companies are testing.
The redrafted regulations will be the subject of a public hearing on 19 October, in Sacramento.
The California DMV has been wrestling for several years with how to oversee the emerging technology. In December, the agency released an initial draft of self-driving car regulations that required a licensed driver in any self-driving vehicle.
The automotive and tech industries reacted with great disappointment, as the ultimate vision of many companies is a car with no steering wheel or pedals. That approach is based on the argument that humans are not very good at driving, and cannot be relied on as a back-up to a car that typically drives itself.
The DMV’s new document coincides with the release last week of a 112-page federal proposal under which any self-driving car should pass a 15-point safety assessment before the public can use it.
Among other things, the safety assessment asks automakers to document how the car detects and avoids objects and pedestrians; how hardened it is against cyber-attacks; and how its back-up systems will cope should the software fail.
In incorporating the federal approach, California dropped a proposal that a third-party company certify the safety of self-driving cars.
In an interview with the New York Times published early Saturday, Trump discussed whether he would accept the results of the election if he lost.
“We’re going to have to see. We’re going to see what happens. We’re going to have to see,” Trump told the Times.
That’s a far cry from what the Republican nominee said Monday, during the first presidential debate of the general election.
After Clinton asserted that she “certainly will support the outcome of this election,” debate moderator Lester Holt posed the same question to Trump.
Trump’s response: “Look, here’s the story. I want to make America great again. I’m going to be able to do it. I don’t believe Hillary will. The answer is, if she wins, I will absolutely support her.”
Trump has long claimed that the U.S. political system was “rigged,” but in recent months, the business mogul has propagated fears that the election itself would be unfairly stacked against him.
...
Trump also previewed a new Clinton attack line in his Times interview, suggesting that he would bring up former President Clinton and his marital infidelities during his next debate with the Democratic nominee.
Trump slammed Mr. Clinton for his relations with Monica Lewinsky and his other sexual exploits, claiming that they “brought shame onto the presidency, and Hillary Clinton was there defending him all along.”
“Hillary Clinton was married to the single greatest abuser of women in the history of politics,” he added about Mr. Clinton. “Hillary was an enabler, and she attacked the women who Bill Clinton mistreated afterward. I think it’s a serious problem for them, and it’s something that I’m considering talking about more in the near future.”
EPT
